(This is a call-out for no1marauder, in a way.)
We all know that recidivism is unusually high for child molesters, and,
unlike most other offenses, the older one gets, the more likely they
are to commit this crime.
In America, we have Megan's Law, in which convicted sex offenders are
obligated to register their address with a local agency, stay a certain
number of feet from schools and places which primarily cater to children,
cannot work in any child-based institution (day care, theme park), and
many other restrictions. In essence, they have a 'life sentence' after
incarceration.
Now, I am a supporter of such laws and restrictions. However, it has
gotten me thinking about parts of debates that I have witnessed amongst
various prinicipals in this forum. Do we have fundamental rights?
#1 has mentioned many times his Lockean philosophy about how
fundamental rights cannot be revoked (although, obviously, we can
deny they exist). LH has brought up the idea of a 'hierarchy of
fundamental rights,' where some fundamental rights are more important
than others.
In the case of Megan's Law (and similar ones), it seems that there is
no case for exception. The 24-year old guy who had consentual sex
with a 17-year old girl who lied about her age gets lumped in with a
sexual child-predator. The former is branded for the rest of his life.
And, while there is no denying that recidivism is unusually, even scarily
high for sexual predators, there are a few who are committed to reform,
who are determined to live lives with healthy and appropriate interactions
with children.
Many times, sexual predators are harrassed roundly by their neighbors
after they find out about their status, and often times suffer vandalizing
and even attacks. The police have little motivation to pursue such
reports given the victim.
In both cases: the statutory rapist and the reformed child molestor,
there is no regaining of a (fundamental?) right(?) to privacy or the
(fundamental?) right to pursue their lives in the way they see fit
without governmental interference or the (fundamental?) right to live
free of harrassment and to be protected from it.
Again, I am a supporter of Megan's Law and the restrictions associated
with it. But I am not clear-of-conscience on its implications and was
hoping to hear a little debate on the issue.
Nemesio
its one massive grey area for the government to deal with; the problem with the peadophile is they cannot be changed; no amount of jail sentence will help - unlike a bank robber. it is no different to saying gay sex is wrong so from now on all men must like women or we will lock them up; the truth is a peadophile is attracted to children and will always be that way; quite where that desire comes from is debatable. also, there are many forms of peadophiles... they cannot be grouped into one convenient pot yet the government insist on doing so; in all honesty the peadophile is not a threat to society, it is only when they view rape as justifiable to their needs that they become a threat; what thoughts are conjured up in their imagination in their home are of no harm or interest to anyone, but what happens when the desire is so strong they are forced into carrying out these thoughts for real; treatment can help them realise how wrong this this but by then it is already too late, an innocent life has already either been taken or will never be the same; so what is society to do with them,and by then should society still protect them; who's to blame; interesting debate indeed?
Originally posted by NemesioOne by their actions can voluntarily relinquish a right or forfeit a right. When this is done by State penal sanction, the punishment must not be disproportionate to the crime.
(This is a call-out for no1marauder, in a way.)
We all know that recidivism is unusually high for child molesters, and,
unlike most other offenses, the older one gets, the more likely they
are to commit this crime.
In America, we have Megan's Law, in which convicted sex offenders are
obligated to register their address with a local agency, stay a ce ...[text shortened]... ence on its implications and was
hoping to hear a little debate on the issue.
Nemesio
The types of laws you are referring to (I refuse to follow the ridiculous practice of calling any criminal statute "X's" law) are generally overboard and disproportionate. While they are justifiable in the cases of true pedophiles, they usually sweep into their net people who's acts are little threat to society (particulary statutory rapists).
First for Gino (the single sentence reader):
If you don't even feel like you're a welcome part of a community, why
would you care in the least about anyone else's happiness and
prosperity?
And now to those who wants to read more:
It's the neighbours Nemesio talk about here that I dislike the most.
Their behaviour, to harass another person for what (s)he's done in the
past, despite the fact (s)he's payed for his/her crime and even when
(s)he doesn't show any signs of repeating the offence, may very well
drive this person back to being a threat. I often ask myself why
someone who's constantly haunted for who they are would even care
about his/her persecuters and their loved ones? To constantly remind
this person that (s)he's nothing but filth and trash, is to push him/her
into it. And quite frankly, I often wonder if that isn't precisely what such
spineless creaps are trying to do, to get who they think will eventually
crack and fall back into crime away from their neighbourhood. It shows a
complete lack of intelligence, courage and self-insight and I think
they should be arrested, judged, sentenced, re-educated and then
thrown back into society as if nothing changed, because they are in
fact an indirect threat to their own neighbourhood.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm all for being cautious about a previously
sentenced sex offender, but that's hardly the same as harassing;
automatically assume that this person can't deal with his/her problem. If
you don't even give the fogger the benefit of a doubt; a chance to do
right by others and support him/her when feeling weak, how the hell will
(s)he ever get better?
Addition:
I definitely think there are basic rights that should apply to everyone
who's not currently undergoing a jail sentence or treatment for a crime
committed. Once the person has served his/her time, (s)he should be
truly free again. Neighbours definitely shouldn't be able to find out that
this person ever was a sexual offender.
Then we have nuances. A more serious offense should of course be dealt
with more harshly. Such a person might have to report back to a
therapist on a regular basis, and possibly be monitored, but not so that
others can understand this. The idea is to give freedom as much as
possible without exposing new innocent people to possible danger.
- Joined
- 20 Jan 06
- Moves
- 104433
Originally posted by stockenyeah, poor paedophile haunted for the rest of his life by spineless creeps. try telling that to the thousands of children and families who have had the misfortune to be exposed to his/her sick fantasy and whose lives are shattered or ended prematurely as a consequence. if you're going to advocate understanding for these people, maybe in the same breath you could include the victims so the whole context reinforces why people react the way they do to paedophiles. (i'm not saying that you don't have sympathy for their victims, i just don't share your enthusiasm for advocating understanding for them).
[b]First for Gino (the single sentence reader):
If you don't even feel like you're a welcome part of a community, why
would you care in the least about anyone else's happiness and
prosperity?
And now to those who wants to read more:
It's the neighbours Nemesio talk about here that I dislike the most.
Their behaviour, to harass anoth ...[text shortened]... as much as
possible without exposing new innocent people to possible danger.[/b]
Originally posted by chrissybThe activities in question include streaking, skinny dipping, public urination, and mooning. Consensual sodomy, adultery, and oral sex are also crimes for which one could be declared a sex offender and required to register under the law.
yeah, poor paedophile haunted for the rest of his life by spineless creeps. try telling that to the thousands of children and families who have had the misfortune to be exposed to his/her sick fantasy and whose lives are shattered or ended prematurely as a consequence. if you're going to advocate understanding for these people, maybe in the same breath you ...[text shortened]... or their victims, i just don't share your enthusiasm for advocating understanding for them).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan%27s_Law
So one day some bloke takes a piss in public, and he is branded a sex offender and would be harrassed by his neighbours for the rest of his life. How can oral sex ever be considered a threat?
Another consequence is serious misunderstanding. People harrass other people because of ignorance. For example, when a paediatricians got attacked because they were confused with paedophiles. Usually by gangs of people who would look for any excuse to attack people (maybe because they have nothing better to do with their lives).
Originally posted by chrissybI know what you mean, but like lausey says, sexual offenders are not
yeah, poor paedophile haunted for the rest of his life by spineless creeps. try telling that to the thousands of children and families who have had the misfortune to be exposed to his/her sick fantasy and whose lives are shattered or ended prematurely as a consequence. if you're going to advocate understanding for these people, maybe in the same breath you or their victims, i just don't share your enthusiasm for advocating understanding for them).
just paedophiles, and more often than not (as in your own example
here) people tend to forget that, and get stuck on the term sexual
offender, which can be anything from having forced yourself on a child to
(apparently) taking a piss in public.
Even for brutal paedophiles, there comes a time when their sentence is
done (you can argue life, but if the court sends him/her to ten years in
prison, when those ten years are over (s)he must be considered free and
given a chance to do better).*
I'm saying that this is far too complex an issue for such a primitive and
brute reaction as mob mentality. I'm saying that it serves no one any
good to harass a known sexual offender who has done his/her time and
tries to change for the better. I'm not ignoring the importance of how the
victims and their families must feel about it, but it is (in all bluntness)
besides the point. Anyone who has done the time for a sexual offence
and are then deemed appropriate to return to society, should be given
the chance to do so without being reminded all the time about all the
wrong (s)he's done in the past. That's not healthy for the offender,
victims or their relatives. Sometimes psychologists release mentally ill
people that later commit crimes, but I think those are the exceptions (I
would be interested in some real statistics here though).
I'm not saying we should all take pity on serious sex offenders and hold
their hands all the time while completely ignoring their victims. I'm
saying we should never allow ourselves to fall victim to our own fear,
paranoia and possibly hatred.
So, we have a convicted sexual offender in our mist, eh? I wonder if
they can ever get cured. I don't think so. I think it's just a matter of time
before xe assaults a new child. One of our children. I think we must let
xer know that we're on to xer. I want xer out of my neighbourhood.
This kind of reaction will inevitably make things worse, and when the
poop hits the fan, people won't admit that they more or less drove this
person back to his/her insanity.
And that's really sad.
Isn't it funny though, how we often think that people who have
committed acts that scare us (murder, rape, physical assault or even
hurting our feelings) can never change? Of course they can change.
If they want to. We should give incentive to want to change rather than
judging them for life even when they don't do what we fear they will do
some day (as soon as we let our guard down, no doubt). It's called
paranoia and it's definitely not healthy for us, so why do it? Keep a
critical eye on others and never stop asking questions? Yes. Judge them
openly and never allow them to prove themselves or change? No.
---
* Then, of course, there's the debate of whether or not prisons are doing
any good or simply worsening the offenders mentality, but that's a whole
other debate, yes?
It also depends on the definition of a child molester. In Iowa a 19 year old guy went to jail for 4 years becuase he got his 14 year old girlfriend pregnant. After his jail term he was a registered sex offender but he married this same girl and had 2 more kids. Then Iowa passed a "get tough" law that said registered sex offenders can't be near children so he had to move out of his own house and split up the family that he (and they) love. This does not seem right to me. Shouldn't there be different levels of sex offenders? Maybe on a 1 to 10 scale this guy should be rated as a 1 while a guy who rapes and murders kids should be rated as a 10. Does anybody out there agree with this idea?
Originally posted by NemesioThey have the right to be executed after they are fed their genitalia.
(This is a call-out for no1marauder, in a way.)
We all know that recidivism is unusually high for child molesters, and,
unlike most other offenses, the older one gets, the more likely they
are to commit this crime.
In America, we have Megan's Law, in which convicted sex offenders are
obligated to register their address with a local agency, stay a ce ...[text shortened]... ence on its implications and was
hoping to hear a little debate on the issue.
Nemesio
Originally posted by flexmoreHow is it my fault "you " decided to bring your kids to an execution.
Torturing people in front of children (who are part of the general public) is surely a form of child abuse.
No one would be forced to watch anything.
Much like your not allowed to bring an underage kid to an r ratd movie you wouldn't be able to take one to an execcution.